Ryzen 1700x @3.8ghz
Vega 64 Nitro+
I. Skill ceiling/floor: The more complex behavior the player needs to manage/master, the higher the skill ceiling. The skill floor will be how fast you can master one or several of these behaviors dependent of how complex the game is, and therefore having any relevance on your team.
That definition of "skill floor" is incorrect. "skill floor" describes how "approachable" a game for beginners is. F.e. Dota2 has a much higher skill floor than, f.e. Quake 3. Quake 3 = join server, run around+shoot. Dota2... open game, be confused about everything, try to work through.
"how fast" you can master stuff is literally describing skill ceiling. More complex mechanics = more time you can spend mastering them.
II. With a lower Time To Kill, there will be less need for repeated hits on your opponent, thereby lowering the timeframe it takes to kill any given opponent, this will lower the skill floor in a 1v1 situation regarding aim, as the less skilled player can have worse aim but get a lucky spray.
Addition: it also lowers the importance of a proper position in a 1on1. The faster you can kill someone, the less important is positioning. It doesnt matter if you have a good position or not, if you enemy can't react and punish you anyways. That's why people with good aim can risk being in a worse position in a "high" TTK game.
V. With a low TTK the skill ceiling will be higher regarding the need to maintain situational awareness, as the punishment for not doing so is more severe.
The punishment is "death" in both cases. High TTK or low TTK. Everyone plays the same game. It's not more "severe". It's both "death".
VII. With a higher TTK the time you fire your gun on each opponent will be within a longer timeframe, therefore is is harder to remain undetected or attract unwanted attention due to sound or muzzle flash from third-parties, being very obvious on night maps.
Yes, with a higher TTK the longer you fight, the more vulnerable you are (and...the more ammo you waste).
having nothing to improve was not an issue in Insurgency 2014 even with a lower skill-ceiling than for example CS:GO, because you can always improve team tactics if you are in the position of mastering the other aspects of the game.
While this might be true, what about "public" gameplay? It becomes super stale and boring very fast. This applies to competitive gameplay as well btw. CS 1.6 got stale after....what? 10 years?! Simply because it had such a high skill ceiling. Once pro players approached the "end" of that skill ceiling.... it became stale. The lower the skill ceiling, the earlier you gonna reach that point. You don't want that for a game that wants to be competitive. At all.
I know CSGO and it's predecessors have had more skilled players through the years of existing and have more complexity both because of the recoil patterns, the higher TTK and the amount of players who have played it for a long time all exceeds Insurgency, but having the highest possible skill ceiling should maybe not be the goal in itself, as the complexity of a first person shooter is not exactly rocket science, nor does it need to reach for always higher complexity, as the time invested to master such a game also raises. In CSGO you will need to practice in the timeframe of about 10 hours a day to maintain a pro level according to a video from Shroud (I am not gonna try to find the correct video as proof, as that would take forever, but there is plenty of statements by other pro players that mirror similar training needed).
I mean...yes? A higher skill ceiling requires more work and practice. That means people are more invested into you game. That's usually want a company should want. Invested customers.
Being accessible for the most amount of players by being entertaining, without being to generic and loose relevance, is what matters from both an economic viewpoint and popularity. If the niche hits home with exactly you is a matter of taste, but conflicting views are not invalid if it don't.
Sure, but this is why i always try to argue gameplay and not personal preference or nostalgia. Otherwise i'd be arguing for quake-level of ttk ;).
Just by going down the list you created here... like... from a pure gameplay perspective: how can anyone want a lower TTK, if they want the game to be good and succeed?!
understanding the argument for "1 shot 1 kills"
Making bad arguments = "YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND IT!!!!"
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Give me an (gameplay) argument for 1 shot kills with every weapon against torso with an example where this argument holds up. So far i haven't heard one. Cyoce tried and couldn't succeed. Maybe you can.
Why does this even need discussion. Like..the sway currently literally rewards players with bad aim thanks to the suppression sway. Who on earth thought this is a good mechanic? Unless this game doesn't wanna be competitive ofc.
Even if there was no weapon sway you still could not pick your shots because bullets don't kill in 1 shot. This make full auto spraying so much more prevalent in Sandstorm, more than the weapon sway from a long 100 meter sprint would.
Because with more dmg you'd spray less, right? Because...reasons. Kill more people with 1 magazine and don't even bother saving ammo. But more dmg = less spraying. The logic. Mindblowing
@thehappybub well, too be honest a lot of problems this game has make me question how capable NWI actually is, not from a technical standpoint, but from a design standpoint.
@benz Spare me the condescension. It's completely unnecessary and counter-productive.
Misusing terminology is counter productive. Me educating you on the topic is productive. I don't care what you think about me, I'm not here to make friends (lol). As long as you never misuse the term again with your newly gained knowledge, i literally couldn't care less what you think about me.
You continually gloss over the point that a lower TTK makes things "easier" by enabling good plays. Even with one shot kills, you still need substantial aim to quickly shoot five targets once before any of them return fire. With a higher TTK, it is inevitable that a superior player will take stray bullets. I am talking about body shot TTK for reasons described below.
I'm confused. So what? Stray bullets won't kill you in a high TTK game. That's the whole point. You can tank more dmg in order to deal more dmg. In a low TTK game it boils down to how fast the enemies can react to you and that's it. Few lucky bullets and you are down. That said: you don't counter any of my arguments here.
You seem to keep coming back to this point about headshots. I would love for headshots to be a viable solution to the current TTK issues, but a few other factors in the game's mechanics prevent headshots from being a reliable option right now.
I play Sandstorm every day and I don't find headshots to be unreliable at all. The opposite. The guns in this game are literally a laser, even at longer ranges, and spraying is way easier compared to f.e. CSGO. Headshots are reliable as shit right now. The sad part is: I barely go for headshots, simply because body hits kill fast enough anyway and it's not like I need to conserve ammo. Even 3 mags are enough for the usual firefight round.
The two problems are RNG recoil and sway. Right now, sway is introduced by
- Standing introduces significant sway, which can be mitigated after a (sometimes lethal) delay by holding breath
Isn't that what people want? Thinking about taking the proper fights? I don't have a problem with that. Crouching makes your weapons a laser anyways.
- Suppression. In an open gunfight, suppression's heavy RNG sway is just a side effect of your opponent missing. If suppression were reverted to its state in Ins2, that would go a long way
I fully agree. Suppression is cancer and has to go. It literally rewards bad aimers. It's retarded.
- Sprinting. With maps this large, it's essential to sprint for long amounts of time (sometimes upwards of 30 seconds). After sprinting, your gun becomes too imprecise to even land a body shot at medium-long range.
I agree as well here. The game has issues way beyong TTK.
RNG recoil wouldn't play into the skill ceiling of the game too much if sway were removed, because landing the first shot headshot would be consistent for skilled players.
As it stands, however, the TTK should not be balanced around an unreliable mechanic. I would be just as happy with the removal RNG in order to make headshots viable as with one/two body shot kills.
100% yes on the sway, but 100% no on the body shot TTK. I've explained why in my large post.
No offense here and i think you make good points in your post, but you don't counter any of the arguments i made in my gigantic post above. So i assume you can't counter them (no offense) and we agree on them, despite you prefering lower TTK for personal reasons. If you'd prefer it for gameplay reasons you'd be able to back up your initial arguments and actually counter my counter-arguments.
@benz A lower TTK, while arguably lowering the skill floor (as in your comments about how it's "easier to hit 1 shot than 3 shots"), also raises the skill ceiling by allowing one player to take on multiple less competent enemies.
Example: You pull off a great flank and end up behind 5 enemy players. With low TTK, 5-10 shots will be enough to kill them all, rewarding you for working for a positional advantage and being able to quickly spray transfer between 5 targets. With a high TTK, you might get one or two before they turn around and kill you, winning the engagement by virtue of their large combined health pool instead of their skills.
- You obv. don't know what "low skill ceiling" and "high skill ceiling" even means. Let me explain:
In your glorious example it's literally easier to kill people, because of a lower TTK. If you make a situation easier to handle, then you are lowering the skill ceiling. A high skill ceiling offers players room to improve, it creates space for mistakes. F.e. in your example:
Player A and B can be in equal skill in regards to positioning (here: flanking). Player A has worse aim and he can't take down 5 enemies. Player B has better aim and he can take them down. If in your example the TTK is lower to the point where Player B could also handle the situation, you equalize their skill by lowering the skill ceiling.
Stuff i recommend you to read on the topic in order to be able to have a proper conversation and not get terminology wrong: https://esportsedition.com/general/skill-ceiling-skill-floor-esports-terminology/
"The fewer complex mechanics a game has, the lower its inherent skill ceiling."
You 1. Example: CS:GO has a higher TTK and you can kill multiple people just fine, if you have the skill for it. Also: even in Sandstorm right now you can do that just fine. Your example simply comes down to the need for better aim.
Your 2. Example: extreme example...with an aimbot you'd headshot them all. So it once again comes down to aim. With a lower TTK this 1on5 situation would be only be easier, if your enemies are way worse. Otherwise a lucky body hit and you are dead.
Once again lowering the skill ceiling. Although i'd argue that it only lower it for the attackers, and actually makes it harder for the single defender, because you get rekt by a lucky hit and can't recover from it. In a realistic scenario where you actually play in your own skill bracket via matchmaking.... you are fucked 1on5. Simple as that.
This simply has to be balanced.
In a game with an extremely high TTK like f.e. Quake you can't even take on 3 people. In CS it's hard, but totally doable.
Also: with a higher TTK... if you have better aim (and are better in general) than your 5 enemies, it's actually easier to handle, the better your aim is. You can 1 shot them all with a headshot AND you can tank more dmg without getting killed by a lucky body hit, actually giving you time to deal the damage. This would also encourage teamplay from the 5 players, as taking you on 1by1 would be WAY more risky than taking you 2on1. Prove: CSGO. That's exactly how CS:GO works. You don't see many high skilled players rambo much for a good reason. I thought that's what people in this community want? More teamplay? Or not? Personally i certainly would like more teamplay.
( try taking a 2on1 in Quake 3 CTF. Hint: you gonna be in a bad situation...)
rewarding you for working for a positional advantage
You know what the reward for putting yourself into a positional advantage is? Positional advantage. Low TTK, high TTK. Everyone plays the same game and the guy with a positional advantage will always be better off, no matter what. There's no situation on earth where 2 equally skilled players face each other and the guy with the worse position wins. What kinda logic is that even.
winning the engagement by virtue of their large combined health pool instead of their skills.
... or you could say: by teamplay. But hey: if you flank 5 people in a 5on5 and kill 2-3 of them, you literally did your job. lol. it's a freaking 2(3)-for-1 trade. Like...good job? What else?!
Even funnier: uhm...what about some actual teamplay? If you wouldn't fight 5 people alone, but like...with a team-mate. You would have killed them?! I thought people want to encourage teamplay?! This low-ttk "so i can flank 5 people all kill them all with no effort" is retarded and encourages solo play over teamplay.
and i have heard none so far besides "because i like it" and "because it was in ins2".
Confirmation bias is wonderful, isn't it?
feel free to give me an argument with:
- a thesis
- the argument
- an example
If i can't counter it i'll add the argument to my list.
@benz Maybe don't extrapolate this one example into an ad hominem against anyone who would argue for a return of Ins2's TTK? There are legitimate reasons to want a lower TTK, but none of them are covered by OP.
and i have heard none so far besides "because i like it" and "because it was in ins2".